I really think all the Dem's need to do to win back the presidency is flip Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania and these are all very likely because a few of the house seats in these states flipped and they are all states that have been affected by the Tariffs.

I think unseating Trump totally depends on the candidate chosen by the Democrats. It seems that strongly Progressive candidates did not fare well last night (TX, GA, FL, etc). If a centrist candidate is chosen from a non coastal state, it’s a lock win. Klobuchar would be my choice.

I wonder why the Minnesota Democratic Farm-Labor Party has never caught on in any other states, it seems like it could be a great format for Democratic Politics. I still miss Paul Wellstone and really thought he would have made an excellent President

Minnesota politics from the Dems perspective is very interesting but its completely overlooked on a national level by the Coastal Elites

Missouri voted a big 65% for medical marijuana. Will recreational hit near future ballot? Seems more of those not in support for use favor not criminalizing it. Michigan first Midwest state to vote for recreational use.

I don't think KS is "going blue" anytime soon, in the sense of becoming a reliably blue state. Glad to see things shift back a bit in this election, but I can't imagine it portends anything long-term about KS turning some meaningful corner.

Right, not growing blue identity but 'going blue' when GOP is extreme and more moderate DEM candidates are an option. KS looks to be moving away from GOP identity, not necessarily toward DEM identity and appears to be going for moderate candidates at this point. And if there is a moderate GOP vs moderate DEM, KS will go back to red. The bigger question is would KS go for Trump vs. a moderate DEM in 2020. GOP is getting away with extreme positions, forcing many DEMs to move toward the middle while more voters are turning toward Indie identity. Will be interesting to see what the playing field looks like in 2 years.

KS has a history of DEM governors that has never translated to DEM senators let alone a DEM president. KS will vote Trump in 2020.

Difference being that KS is moving away from GOP identity per links a few posts back, ranking top 5 of all states in past now it's middle of pack, lower than MO. KS apparently doesn't go for extremes and the (not) Kobach vote is being portrayed as a GOP (Trump) is getting too extreme vote. Trump is about as extreme we've seen. If DEMs bring a moderate candidate, is plausible KS goes there depending on how Trump behaves next 2 years (and impact of tariffs). KS turnabout looks to be very different than MO drinking the Trump deceitful koolaid.

If every single Senate seat was up for re-election would the Dems have flipped it or would have held about the same?

My best guess is the Dems would lose 52-48. Voters are too polarized/tribalized right now and there are too many sparsely populated deep red states. In the other two Senate classes, coming up in 2020 and 2022, there are really only three GOP seats that look potentially flippable, at least based on the state's history of going blue in statewide or pres elections (and not really accounting for the incumbent's popularity), and those are CO (Gardner), PA (Toomey), and WI (Johnson). And the Dems will give back AL (Jones). A stronger showing on Tuesday, holding IN and/or MO, would have a) put them in a better starting spot for 2020 and b) suggested they can still compete in red states. Instead they're gonna also lose FL. In light of Tuesday's results, I don't feel confident the Dems will retake the Senate ever again under the current partisan alignment.

Re: Pelosi, I don't think she's going to "help" Trump as much as he apparently thinks. In this election, the one that could actually return her to power, the attack ads didn't really work and pre-election surveys listed her at the very bottom of reasons people cited for their vote, after all the actual issues. I think if Trump tries to run "against" her, it'll fall flat with most voters outside his base (relatedly, at some point he needs to stop railing against Hillary -- the people who go to his rallies eat it up, but how many ordinary voters actually care anymore?). I do think the Dems need to dump Schumer, not because Trump will have much success running "against" him, but because he's an incompetent, bumbling fool, and he failed spectacularly at his one overarching goal, which was to protect vulnerable Dems.

I really think all the Dem's need to do to win back the presidency is flip Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania and these are all very likely because a few of the house seats in these states flipped and they are all states that have been affected by the Tariffs.

I think unseating Trump totally depends on the candidate chosen by the Democrats. It seems that strongly Progressive candidates did not fare well last night (TX, GA, FL, etc). If a centrist candidate is chosen from a non coastal state, it’s a lock win. Klobuchar would be my choice.

I think this is overly simplistic and selective sampling. I can just as easily point to a spate of moderate candidates who got wiped out (eg all the Dem Senators who lost, or the string of tepid moderate Dems who lost FL gov races before Gillum came along), and progressives (eg Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin) who won Trump states.

At a local or state level, there just is no one size fits all -- it's not that Dems should run universally moderate, or universally progressive candidates. They need to have a broad platform onto which both moderates and progressives can project their vision, and then run the appropriate candidate for the particular race.

For pres, I think it's actually even less complicated. I feel relatively confident that the states that went for Hillary are generally safe for Dems -- that is, if they had run Bernie instead, I don't think they'd have lost any of Hillary's states. So the vaunted "firewall" turned out to be the marginal Dem states, and they should run someone who can bring those particular states back into the fold. Klobuchar could probably do it, considering the margin she ran up in narrowly Clinton but still very similar Minnesota -- but Brown, who won Ohio pretty easily, probably could too. I know Dems are scaling back on superdelegates after 2016 (and in the interest of democracy, they should), but to whatever extent they decide to put their thumb on the scale in 2020, they should do it paying close attention to the primaries in those upper Midwest states (note that Bernie won the primary in MN, WI, and MI, as well as a bunch of other "conservative"/red states -- ID, MT, WY, ND, IN, WV, and yes, KS, among others). Unless you think a progressive will alienate an already-blue state, the lesson from 2016 and from Tuesday doesn't seem to be that the Dems *must* run a centrist. It's really that Dems need to go back to their pro-labor roots. Whether the pro-labor candidate is otherwise "moderate" or "progressive" on non-labor issues seems to me like it will be somewhat less important.

^ I think a progressive absolutely does alienate states that went for Hilary, and she would have won if policy was the only factor. Bernie might have win if personality was the only factor. The Dems need a likable, moderate candidate. It shouldn’t be that hard.

Hillary won five states by less than 5%, and only one (Nevada) didn't go for Bernie in the primary. Granted that the primary electorate isn't the same as the general electorate, but it does give you a sense of what kind of Democrats are in these Democratic states. I'm curious which specific states you think would flip from HRC to Trump if the Dems ran a progressive candidate, especially given that Trump ran on a basically left wing economic platform (higher taxes on rich people, better health care coverage for everyone, protect workers from foreign competition, etc -- the fact that he's actively undermining most of his campaign promises doesn't change the fact that he did campaign on them). People complained that HRC spent too much time campaigning on "check out the other guy" and never talked about jobs (which wasn't true, but the GOP has long been way better at messaging than the Dems, so the narrative took hold). A progressive Dem neutralizes all those talking points, so Trump really only runs on virulent racism and his cult of personality. And who knows, maybe that's all he needs, but it's hard to see a progressive candidate doing worse than Hillary did, ie losing states that she carried.

Opinion polling also consistently shows that the general population is to the left of federal policy. Some of these results can shift somewhat based on how the question is posed (eg support for Medicare for All falls somewhat if you tell people it requires a new tax), but in principle this is mostly stuff people want. They might not necessarily be there on a few points, like abolishing ICE, but by and large, aggregate national opinion on a broad range of issues is closer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than to Claire McCaskill, Paul Ryan, Mark Meadows, or Donald Trump. I mean Missouri voters just annihilated RTW a few months ago, and several red states have expanded Medicaid when the question was put directly to voters. In light of all that, I just don't see which HRC states are gonna flip to Trump if the Dems run a progressive candidate with an actual vision for the country.

^ I think a progressive absolutely does alienate states that went for Hilary, and she would have won if policy was the only factor. Bernie might have win if personality was the only factor. The Dems need a likable, moderate candidate. It shouldn’t be that hard.

Its got to be Beto O'Rourke in my mind. He is the only clearcut person in my eyes that appeals to young and old. Hell did you see the 90 year old lady voting for the first time ever and it was all because of Beto. Lincoln lost his Senate race and ran for President a couple years later. George Bush Sr did the same thing I believe, lost Senate race then got VP then President. So putting a Senate loser out there is not a risk, he is what exactly the Dems need. They need to break away from Hillary, Schumers, Pelosi's and these other old farts and need to embrace this guy. All they need to do is Flip 3 states (Iowa/Michigan/Pennsylvania) and it can easily be done.

I think Beto more than has the personality but not the depth. He’s probably more of a 2024, 2028 candidate. Just not enough experience or substance. He’ll definitely be a future Dem nominee. The Dems did something very smart in some races this term; they had women with military backgrounds. All of them won. That’s an ideal candidate.

This is just a random sampling of issues that popped into my head. Like I acknowledged before, there are some, like abolish ICE, that the general population isn't there on. But by and large, majorities support "left" policies, even if they wouldn't identify as leftwing, even if they recoil at "socialism."

I think Beto more than has the personality but not the depth. He’s probably more of a 2024, 2028 candidate. Just not enough experience or substance. He’ll definitely be a future Dem nominee. The Dems did something very smart in some races this term; they had women with military backgrounds. All of them won. That’s an ideal candidate.

Trump didn't have any experience and he won. People don't want career politicians anymore.